One of the most controversial monarchs of this country and not even a mention here so I thought I would start the topic - King Charles I.

Some of you may or may not know that King Charles I was involved and perhaps instigated the English Civil War.
Along with other Stuart King's - Charles believed in the 'Divine Rights of Kings' which appalled Parliament and caused friction between the two parties.
At the time the King was an absolute ruler and did not reign as a constitutional monarch as we have in our country today.
Parliament suggested to the King about turning England into a constitutional monarchy because they had thought that Charles was out of control. Of course, Parliament got what they wanted with William and Mary as joint monarchs, of whom agreed that a constitutional monarchy would be the best way for the UK to progress.
Charles would not acknowledge the notion of being the national figurehead, while letting Parliament to make all the decisions of the land without any Royal interference or input.
Charles did not sign anything and created more problems for Parliament as he decided to dissolve parliament and did not call for them again until 11 years later when the King was - to put it bluntly - skint.
This is when Parliament thought this would be the best time to get what they wanted and proposed that the King accept a Bill which limited the powers of the monarchy on a whole and gave parliament more power in return for the money, Charles so desperately wanted.
Charles would never, and as a royalist myself, agree with him not backing down to parliamentary pressure.
When Charles attempted to arrest five members of parliament, namely Oliver Cromwell who ordered the execution of the King, this instantly caused parliament to form an army and initiate a civil war against the King and anyone who rallied to the monarch's cause.
Charles, lost, fled and was captured in the end - then with the coercement of Oliver Cromwell, members of parliament signed a death warrant for His Majesty after the ILLEGAL trial of Charles.
King Charles was the fount of justice in every sense of the word. He was above the law. So, the sentencing was illegal and un-justified.

I wonder what life would have been like if Charles had not been executed or in fact had won the Civil War. I personally, would like to see this country run by the monarchy instead of the monarch's ministers.
Charles - was a fantastic politician, a great leader and was a believer in his God given rights to rule.

I would like a debate on, in my opinion, the most prolific monarch this country has had along with King Henry VIII and King John.

I wonder what life would have been like if Charles had not been executed or in fact had won the Civil War. I personally, would like to see this country run by the monarchy instead of the monarch's ministers.

Show me one European country that is still a real monarchy and not a democracy with the label of monarchy? Why do you think Charles' fate would have changed European history so much? Eg I doubt Napoleon with his Code Civil and his enormous influence on Central Europe could have been prevented with a different kind of monarchy in Britain. What about WWI and the changes this brought to the European monarchy? I doubt an absolutistic regime in Britain would ahve changed things so much.

__________________

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

If the monarchy had been absolutist all the way through to the first world war, I'm pretty confident that we'd be a republic now, just like the other European countries that had absolute monarchies in the 20th century.

But he was wrong, wasn't he? There's The King of Norway, The King of Sweden, The King of Spain and The King of Thailand - but no king of England, because
a) it's not longer England but since the 1700s the United Kingdom
b) it's still a queen on the throne...

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

As to the other, if the Queen's own website mentions the English Crown, King Farouk can surely be forgiven for doing so.

But that has a certain reasons:

The Queen has a special relationship with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom, but are dependent territories of the English Crown.
Both have their own forms of self-administration, although the United Kingdom government is responsible for certain areas of policy.
The Queen has a special relationship with both Crown dependencies, and is known there by unique titles.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

Yep, but they could have said "British Crown." Unless the countries of the United Kingdom really are separate. I mean, I know that for this reign, unlike some previous ones where everything was lumped together, the Queen is monarch of each of her countries individually, but I don't know if that includes the countries of the UK individually. I know she's often referred to as Queen of Scotland when she's in residence there, but I don't know how official that is.

You're right but I think the special status of the Channel Islands and of Man makes it necessary to still say "English Crown". I would have to do a check as I don't know for sure but I can imagine that the Channel islands and the Isle of Man did not agree to the formation of the United Kingdom and stressed that while they are attached to England, they don't want to be attached to the UK but stay attached to the English Crown only. Which obviously is possible.

Another hint that the kingdoms still exist may be the way the kings or queens are counted. Even though there never was a queen Elisabeth I. of Scotland and none of the Uk, the current queen counts herself to be the Second, thus declaring that she still follows her ancestor James VI. of Scotland who officially called himself James I after inheriting the crown of England.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

I'm quite sympathetic to the plight of Charles I, but personally I'm glad that there are so few monarchies in the world left. As a man, he was a saint, almost, but as a king, he stunk, period. He faced his failure to win the English Civil War and his death very courageously, I think, so he should get some credit for that at least.

__________________
I had a dream: Let's connect our thoughts together, than we have a mission, let's connect our feelings together, than we have a mood, let's connect our dreams together, than we have a vision and let's connect our mission, our mood and our vision together than we have a perfect life.

I was unable to understand and read the linked article but when I saw the January date of the execution it reminded me that it was reported the King asked to wear two shirts so he would not shiver from the cold, lest anyone assume that he was shivering from fear. Is this factual or apocryphal?

It wasn't really Charles I who sank the divine right of kings completely, it was his son James II- William and Mary came to the throne due to James II, and how unpopular he was in England. I think that wasn't the only thing that moved England towards constituentional monarchy though, it was also that George I and II being from Germany, and not knowing the English language very well or at all, had their ministers rule for them. Charles I wasn't a bad man, he just held strongly to an outmoded idea, the Divine Right of Kings. I think it was the best choice that the monarchy returned though in the person of Charles II who was far more laid back as a ruler.

King Charles I was in an awkward position. His father had managed to maintain a balance in England of contending parties that were religious as much as political, but by the time he died moves to support European protestants militarily meant the possibility of expensive wars abroad that the king would have to meet through his own purse plus taxation. Defence was very important in post-reformation England. Charles attempted to reform the Church and State in order to reclaim them from the extremists, but fell foul of a puritan dominated House of Commons. Prior to the outbreak of war a group of his former critics had become his ministers. It would have ended there if it hadn't been for Pym pushing matters too far. Charles was a good man who had his subjects' interests at heart, but was misunderstood - very much a victim of his time. As for the continuation of 'absolute' monarchy - Charles was not an absolute monarch. Cromwell's power over government was considerably greater - and he (the champion of parliament) ruled without parliament himself. It was a great relief when Charles II was acclaimed king and crowned.

Remember, and this is important, Charles I was murdered and Britain got the military dictator Cromwell, Louis XVI was murdered and France got Robespeare and the 'emperor' Napoleon, Czar Nicholas was murdered and Russia got Stalin, The monarchs of Central Europe (Hohenzollerns, Habsburgs, Wittelsbachs, etc.) were pushed out after the Great War and Germany got Hitler. Winston Churchill said that Hitler would never have been able to rise to power in Germany if the monarchies had survived. Worth thinking about.

I disagree with the idea that Charles I was murdered, Nicholas II and his family were murdered; Charles I and Louis XVI were tried and executed by the state. I admit i don't know much about Oliver Cromwell, but I have never heard that his time as head of the government was a bad thing which hurt England. If anything didn't Cromwell's actions further push England to a constitutional monarchy and cement the idea in the minds of the people that the country should be ruled by able minded men, not just someone born in the right family?

I disagree with the idea that Charles I was murdered, Nicholas II and his family were murdered; Charles I and Louis XVI were tried and executed by the state. I admit i don't know much about Oliver Cromwell, but I have never heard that his time as head of the government was a bad thing which hurt England. If anything didn't Cromwell's actions further push England to a constitutional monarchy and cement the idea in the minds of the people that the country should be ruled by able minded men, not just someone born in the right family?

Actually many commentators view Cromwell's time as very bad. Firstly he didn't introduce the constitutional monarchy at all what really happened was the House of Stuart was replaced by the House of Cromwell and he basically had all the powers of a King and acted in the same way as Charles executing his enemies and dissolving Parliament. Also he was very unpopular in England closing all the pubs, committed genocide in Ireland and was quite a religious fanatic. Upon his death the people welcomed Charles II back with open arms and the rule of Cromwell was remembered so badly during Charles II reign he often had the upper hand over Parliament who were scared the country would fall back into those times if there was hostility with the monarch.

You would probably know better than me how Oliver is viewed, for the life of me I cannot get into this time period of English history. Clearly whatever Oliver did it either was good or there was no one to continue it after his death because England wanted a king back.
Has anyone ever heard that Charles' wife influenced him not to listed to parliament because of the divine right of Kings?

Nothing and nobody in the Kings family,upbringing or education would have influenced him or encouraged him to defer to Parliament. His father and his father's predecessor Elizabeth both had endless trouble and obstruction from it, and Charles was taught [and believed] that he was God's viceroy on Earth, and answerable only to Him.

Charles ruled fairly effectively for 11 years without Parliament, and only called one, when his need to raise money [to defeat a rebellion in Ireland] made it essential he did so.

Undoubtedly Henrietta-Maria had an equally low [if not lower opinion of the instiution] as her husband. Parliaments were known in her native France as everybit as troublesome to the Monarchy as they were in England, and the Queens friends [especially Lord Digby] were very vocal in expressing there views on the subject.

Because the King loved his wife so much, when Parliament moved to arrest and impeach the Queen he was pushed to try to arrest 5 members of Parliament, [and when that failed] to flee London with his family and begin to raise an army.

In 1642 Queen Henrietta Maria sailed for Holland.
In Holland she pawned the Crown Jewels to raise money for her husband.

Who would have given Queen Henrietta Maria permission to pawn the Crown Jewels?
Did the Crown Jewels leave England?

In The Kings and Queens of England, Ian Crofton wrote:

Queen Henrietta Maria's fancy French fashions and her openly practiced Catholicism never made her popular with the more stolid of Charles's Protestant subjects.

In Kings & Queens of Great Britain, David Soud wrote:

The Ship Tax was designed only to be levied in wartime, and only on coastal areas, as a way to support naval forces. Charles's lawyers agreed that the Ship Tax could be used in peacetime, and across the entire nation, and the royal court upheld that view.